The Indians felt that they were being unfairly treated and cheated out of their lands. Rightfully so, many tribes formed alliances and fought the English. “The bloodiest and most bitter conflict occurred in southern New England, where in 1675 an Indian alliance launched attacks on farms and settlements that were encroaching on Indian lands. It was the most dramatic and violent warfare in the region in the entire seventeenth century. By 1676, Indian forces had attacked nearly half of New England’s ninety towns. Twelve in Massachusetts were destroyed. As refugees fled eastward, the line of settlement was pushed back almost to the Atlantic coast” (Liberty 92). All the Indians wanted were to be left alone. They were simple people that lived off the land. The English came over and took land that wasn’t theirs to take, the Indians were willing to compromise, but when they kept getting their land taken they decided that enough was enough and that ultimately led to battles. Even though they were victorious, their victory didn’t last. “In mid-1676 the tide of battle turned and a ferocious counterattack broke the Indians’ power once and for all… Both sides (English and Indians) committed atrocities in this merciless conflict, but in its aftermath the image of Indians as bloodthirsty savages became firmly entrenched in the New England mind” (Liberty 93).
The English associated land with liberty, freedom, but also as a status of wealth. “By 1700, nearly 2 million acres of land were owned by only five New York families who intermarried regularly, exerted considerable political influence, and formed one of colonial America’s most tightly knit landed elites” (Liberty 96). Not all English colonists wanted to capitalize land for their own profit. William Penn, a member of a leading English Quaker family and the founder of Pennsylvania “considered his colony a “holy experiment,” but of a different kind- “a free colony for all mankind that should go hither.” He hoped that Pennsylvania could be governed according to Quaker principles, among them the equality of all persons (including women, blacks, and Indians) before God and the primacy of the individual conscience” (Liberty 98). Quakers had views extremely different from most colonizers. They wanted equality for everyone, which ultimately because our society today.
In Virginia tobacco plantations shifted from white indentured servants to African slaves causing poverty among whites and had reached levels reminiscent of England. “In addition, the right to vote, previously enjoyed by all adult men, was confined to landowners in 1670” (Liberty 105). Rebellion against William Berkley soon arouses. White land hungry farmers demanded that he allow the extermination or removal of the colonies Indian population in order to open up more land for whites. He refused and the colonists rebelled against him creating armies which included some African Americans. “The specter of a civil war among whites greatly frightened Virginia’s ruling elite, who took dramatic steps to consolidate their power and improve their image. They restored property qualifications for voting, which Bacon had rescinded…planters developed a new political style in which they cultivated the support of poorer neighbors” (Liberty 105). Berkley tried to make Virginia more like England, unlike the rest of the colonies of New England, where they were given much more freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it is important to note that in addition to English farmers rebelling and expanding by force, Indians felt threatened already due to the increasingly diminishing forest size due to the expansion of farmlands. They began to attack the English because they felt threatened and the English were able to use this as a reason for extermination/expansion.
I disagree that the Indians "just wanted to be left alone." They clearly benefitted from trade with the Englsih colonies, to the point of establishing aliances with them.
I like what you said about William Penn. I never got to that part. Nice example.
The Indians would have been better off without the English at first but they were practically forced to become dependent on their crops and fur because the English had a monopoly on supplies that the Indians once had for free but now the English control.
I agree with what John said - the Indians did not simply want to be left alone, it was a little more complicated than that. They did however, want to have autonomous control over their society and life. So, interaction with the colonists an use of them as allies was acceptable, but being forced into subordinate position was not.
For the English, as you said, land was equivalent to wealth and power, where did the Indian chiefs and warriors find their status? Why was it not land?
Post a Comment